Is there any reason we cannot continue to combat terrorists if the AUMF is repealed? Are McCain and the rest worried that they'll have to actually make a decision at some point? Are they just scared they won't be able to be armchair quarterbacks any longer?

Let's be fair. Republicans have TRIED to reach across the aisle since 2009 and they've TRIED to work with him. Obama still won't even release his birth certificate. He refuses to resign or at least appoint a Republican shadow President.

Is there any reason we cannot continue to combat terrorists if the AUMF is repealed? Are McCain and the rest worried that they'll have to actually make a decision at some point? Are they just scared they won't be able to be armchair quarterbacks any longer?

They want to give Obama power and then attack him for having that power. They have done that very thing multiple times. They actually have attacked him for just having (not using) powers given to him by the AUMF that they gave to the executive branch themselves.

McCain agreed."I believe we are still in a long drawn-out conflict with Al Qaeda. To somehow argue that Al Qaeda is ... on the run, comes from a degree of unreality that to me is really incredible," he said.

To believe that having Sarah Palin as a running mate would attract disgruntled supporters of Hillary Clinton comes from a degree of unreality that to me is really incredible.

/To be fair, from what I heard, he wanted to pick Lieberman.//Pancakes!

Obamas trolling next week:We have identified those people that have leaked National security secrets to our enemies. Heres a series of clips of Senator/Congressman GOP doing it on TV and other speech venues.

vernonFL:Obama said that he would never use armed drones on American soil.

Republicans WOULD use armed drones on American soil.

Just to be clear Obama said he would not use them unless there was some sort of direct threat and there wasn't really any other option. But yeah basically unless it was some crazy hypothetical circumstance.

coco ebert:Besides Rand Paul who in the GOP is against drone strikes (and that's only for American citizens)? It seems like it's one of the few Obama policies the GOP supports.

What?

He is not against drone strikes. He just a piece of shiat who attacked Obama for drone strikes saying that Obama would not answer question that Obama had already answered and criticized for drone strikes that later he said he would do under more circumstances if he was commander in chief.

I had this about Rand Paul, many of his supporters actually have no idea what he actually stands for.

HeartBurnKid:Sgt Otter: Car_Ramrod: coco ebert: Besides Rand Paul who in the GOP is against drone strikes (and that's only for American citizens)? It seems like it's one of the few Obama policies the GOP supports.

Rand Paul is not against drone strikes.

Rand Paul is also not against drone strikes against U.S. citizens.

Rand Paul is not even against drone strikes against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

None of these farkers are against drone strikes. They're just against Obama using drone strikes.

They are just against it when the president is a Democrat or blah or something.

phenn:Corvus: Serious McCain thinks the US should be at a war footing forever. He does. I thank God we didn't make him president. He might have been worse than Bush.

Easily.

McCain is a tortured soul who absolutely worships militarism. He has no business in the senate and absolutely zero business as commander in chief.

Serious I think if McCain was president, and this is not hyperbole, that there would have been a good chance we would be having a "world war 3" now of battles in the middle east backed by super powers. He has basically said at one time or another we should have got more involved with almost every country having any strife in the middle east.

phenn:vernonFL: Obama said that he would never use armed drones on American soil.

Republicans WOULD use armed drones on American soil.

Saying you won't do something is, frankly, not good enough. No one should be permitted to. When Obama leaves office, his replacement has the authority. There is your problem.

So, you can trust your guy and believe he's being sincere. But, the next guy may not be trustable or sincere.

If only Obama wanted to do away with that authority altogether. Oh wait, he does, as he stated yesterday in his speech.

HeartBurnKid:Sgt Otter: Car_Ramrod: coco ebert: Besides Rand Paul who in the GOP is against drone strikes (and that's only for American citizens)? It seems like it's one of the few Obama policies the GOP supports.

Rand Paul is not against drone strikes.

Rand Paul is also not against drone strikes against U.S. citizens.

Rand Paul is not even against drone strikes against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

None of these farkers are against drone strikes. They're just against Obama using drone strikes.

And if it were up to McCain, we'd probably be in Syria and Iran, definitely wouldn't be pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, He'd most likely be dead of a heart attack... so there there would be thousands more dead Americans and Sarah Palin holding the launch codes. Dammit I'm sorry I voted for that Kenyan Romulan socialist.

Corvus:phenn: Corvus: Serious McCain thinks the US should be at a war footing forever. He does. I thank God we didn't make him president. He might have been worse than Bush.

Easily.

McCain is a tortured soul who absolutely worships militarism. He has no business in the senate and absolutely zero business as commander in chief.

Serious I think if McCain was president, and this is not hyperbole, that there would have been a good chance we would be having a "world war 3" now of battles in the middle east backed by super powers. He has basically said at one time or another we should have got more involved with almost every country having any strife in the middle east.

Is there any reason we cannot continue to combat terrorists if the AUMF is repealed? Are McCain and the rest worried that they'll have to actually make a decision at some point? Are they just scared they won't be able to be armchair quarterbacks any longer?

I posted two links to their tactic above from 2008. WOW, they are sore losers.

Jackpot777:We get it. If he started walking on water, you'd accuse him of depriving life-guards of employment.

I've been assured by hardcore Tea Partiers that this is simply not true. What IS true, however, is that Obama would only walk on water if it would advance his freedom-crushing ideology and satisfy his hedonistic drive.

Is there any reason we cannot continue to combat terrorists if the AUMF is repealed? Are McCain and the rest worried that they'll have to actually make a decision at some point? Are they just scared they won't be able to be armchair quarterbacks any longer?

I posted two links to their tactic above from 2008. WOW, they are sore losers.

I almost posted 2007, but I couldn't remember if they were that rabid from the start, so I played the safe game. But point taken.

sheep snorter:Obamas trolling next week:We have identified those people that have leaked National security secrets to our enemies. Heres a series of clips of Senator/Congressman GOP doing it on TV and other speech venues.

Let's start with that traitor Issa, who kept on yammering about the CIA having a (not so much anymore) secret compound in the consulate in Benghazi.

Is there any reason we cannot continue to combat terrorists if the AUMF is repealed? Are McCain and the rest worried that they'll have to actually make a decision at some point? Are they just scared they won't be able to be armchair quarterbacks any longer?

Here's the thing though - given that the Republicans are going to rant, rave, obstruct and refuse to compromise about anything Obama does, then they should no longer be a consideration in the direction he chooses to take on an issue and can't be used as an excuse when he fails to do the right thing.

As in: "Veto the NDAA - well he couldn't have done that or Republicans would have screamed about him not supporting the troops." Not good enough.

Frankly, it's got to the stage where constantly raising the GOP's behavior as mitigation just looks like defensive misdirection.

Is there any reason we cannot continue to combat terrorists if the AUMF is repealed? Are McCain and the rest worried that they'll have to actually make a decision at some point? Are they just scared they won't be able to be armchair quarterbacks any longer?

Here's the thing though - given that the Republicans are going to rant, rave, obstruct and refuse to compromise about anything Obama does, then they should no longer be a consideration in the direction he chooses to take on an issue and can't be used as an excuse when he fails to do the right thing.

As in: "Veto the NDAA - well he couldn't have done that or Republicans would have screamed about him not supporting the troops." Not good enough.

Frankly, it's got to the stage where constantly raising the GOP's behavior as mitigation just looks like defensive misdirection.

How about we stick to this topic. The AUMF. In order to prevent Obama and future presidents from acting unilaterally without much oversight, the AUMF should be repealed, yes? Obama agrees with this. He wants it gone. He said so last night. But he can't get rid of it without Congress, which, because of gerrymandering and filibustering, is under the guidance of the GOP. So in this instance, talking about the GOP's behavior is pretty apropos, don't you think?

Corvus:They want to give Obama power and then attack him for having that power. They have done that very thing multiple times. They actually have attacked him for just having (not using) powers given to him by the AUMF that they gave to the executive branch themselves.

They haven't given Obama any power. They've played with weasel words and monkeyed with legislation already on the book, to zero practical effect, then played it up as if Obama put a gun to their head and forced them to pass it. Then, they attacked Obama for having power given to his predecessor.